Attachment B.pdf

PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT

DATA QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN

Date: January 11, 2018 Version No: 1.00

The standards within represent SCDOT’s Quality Control standards beginning in 2018.

Current SCDOT owned profiler equipment is being replaced with new Laser Crack Measurement System (LCMS) equipped vans. A new vendor to assist with collection is also being selected and they will be using LCMS equipped vans as well.

Contents

QUALITY MANAGEMENT APPROACH

QUALITY CONTROL

Collection Condition Thresholds

Collection Crew Quality Control Duties

Field Engineer Quality Control Duties

Control Sites

Acceptance Criteria for SCDOT Collected Data

Acceptance Criteria for Vendor Collected Data

Image Review Items

QUALITY TEAM ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES

QUALITY REPORTING AND DOCUMENTATION

PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT DATA QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN ACCEPTANCE

APPENDIX I AASHTO and ASTM and other References

APPENDIX II Profiler Calibration Specifications

APPENDIX III Rating Bituminous Pavement Distresses at the SCDOT

APPENDIX V Processing, Quality Control and Data Loads

QUALITY MANAGEMENT APPROACH

The South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) created a Pavement Management System (PMS) in the Mid 1990’s for approximately 10,000 center line miles for its Primary System (I, US, SC) routes and in 2001 began collection of data for approximately 30,000 center line miles of Secondary routes. SCDOT maintains approximately 3,820 Interstate lane miles, 24,000 Primary system lane miles, and 62,800 lane miles of Secondary routes. Data is collected over 100 percent of the length of the state maintained network and reported at increments of 0.10 mile.

Table 1.0 Schedule of Collection

SCDOT SCHEDULE OF PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT COLLECTION*

Survey Types Condition Data Collected CL Miles Frequency Collected by:

Interstate IRI, Distress and Images 851 Annually Vendor Primary IRI, Distress and Images 9,460 Biennially Vendor

Secondary System:

Federal Aid IRI, Distress and Images 10,400 Biennially Both

Non-Federal Aid IRI, Distress and Images 20,600 Triennially SCDOT

* All mileage numbers are approximate.

Table 1.1 General Collection Information

General Data Asphalt and Composite Pavements

Jointed Concrete Pavements

Continually Reinforced Concrete

Surface Type

GPS

Roadway events (Bridges, Railroad

Crossing, Construction, etc…)

Roughness (IRI) Rutting

Fatigue Cracking Transverse Cracking Longitudinal Cracking

Asphalt Patching Raveling

Roughness (IRI) Faulting

Cracked Slabs Spalled Joints

Asphalt Patching Concrete Patching

Roughness (IRI) Longitudinal Cracking

Fatigue Cracking Spalling

Punchouts Asphalt Patching

Concrete Patching

SCDOT uses AASHTO Standards (R43 and R48) for the collection of IRI and rutting with the requirement that reporting is done in US units with a reporting interval of 0.10 miles. SCDOT’s Pavement Management Distress Rating Manual for Asphalt/Concrete (Appendix III and IV) provides complete and clear descriptions of South Carolina designated distresses and guidelines for rating and reporting the distress data. The goal is to achieve accurate, consistent and repeatable data through distress ratings for use in the Pavement Management System. The Rating Manual provides raters an image of distresses with descriptions and requirements about lanes to rate, and extent and severity of distresses for Quality Control purposes in an automated environment.

The standard for collection of data for SCDOT is as follows:

• IRI Data - provide IRI for the left and right wheel paths and the average of both wheel paths at a data summary interval of 0.10 mile intervals. Collect IRI according to AASHTO PP37-04 (R43) using a summary interval of 0.10 mile and report the results in US Customary units.

• Rut Depth Data – For asphalt pavement, provide left rut depth, right rut depth, average rut depth, and maximum rut depth to the nearest hundredth of an inch.

Rut depth should be collected to the nearest hundredth, in accordance with AASHTO PP 38-00(R48), Standard Practice for Determining Maximum Rut Depth in Asphalt Pavements, using a summary interval of 0.10 mile consistent with IRI inventory direction and lane.

• Faulting Data – Provide the average fault. Collect faulting to the nearest hundredth of an inch using a data summary interval of 0.10 miles and reported in US Customary Units measuring the vertical misalignment of pavement joints in PCC pavements in the direction of travel in the right wheel path and consistent with IRI in direction and lane. AASHTO R36-04 specifications or the LTPP protocol are to be followed for the collection of these data.

• Distress Data – provide processed pavement distress ratings using the SCDOT Distress Rating Guide and the Federal requirements for Cracking.

o Cracking Percent:

For Asphalt: the percentage of the total area of the pavement section (based on a 12ft lane width) exhibiting visible fatigue type cracking for all severity levels in wheel path in each section. The wheelpath is defined per the HPMS Field Manual (2016) as 39 inches.

For jointed concrete pavements: the percentage of concrete slabs within each 0.10 miles exhibiting cracking. Partial slabs shall contribute to the section that contains the majority of slab length.

For CRCP: the Cracking Percent is the percentage of the area of the section exhibiting longitudinal cracking, punchouts, and/or patching. Transverse cracking shall not be considered in the Cracking Percent for CRCP.

• Photolog images - provide the pavement (downward facing) and Right of Way views for the entire length. The downward pavement view should provide continuous 100 percent coverage of the driving lane. Resolution of Right of Way views should be a minimum of 2 MP and in .jpeg format. Reporting should be consistent with IRI inventory direction and lane.

• GPS data - provide latitude and longitude in degrees and decimals of a degree to six decimal places for the beginning of each 0.01 mile interval for the entire length of each route.

QUALITY CONTROL

Data Quality Control Measures conducted both before data collection and periodically during collection process

Data collection and deliverables are the focus of Quality Control. QC monitors the deliverables to verify that they are of acceptable quality and are complete and correct.

The following table identifies Control Measures.

Table 2.0 Quality Control Data Standards

SCDOT Data Quality Control for Collection Equipment Protocols

Deliverable Protocols Resolution Accuracy Repeatability (5 pass min)

IRI (left, right & average) AASHTO 1 in/mile +/- 5% of calibrated Class I profiler +/- 5%

Rutting Depth (left, right & average) AASHTO 0.01 in +/- 0.08 in of calibrated

Class I profiler +/- 0.08 in

Faulting (average) AASHTO 0.01 in +/- 0.08 in of calibrated Class I profiler +/- 0.08 in

GPS (Latitude & Longitude) N/A 0.00001 degree Within 50ft N/A

Distress Rating HPMS Field Manual

Distress Dependent

+/- 10% of calibrated Class I profiler N/A

Images N/A N/A Distress Visibility N/A

Note: When comparing multiple profilers, data must be within 5% of all profilers

Table 2.1 Collection Quality Control Activities

SCDOT Data Quality Control Measures

Deliverable QC Activity Frequency/Interval

IRI, Rutting Depth, Faulting, GPS Coordinates

Initial equipment configuration Pre-collection Equipment check and monitoring Daily Calibration/Verification Testing Weekly (SCDOT)

Inspect uploaded data Weekly/Upon Delivery (SCDOT/Vendor)

Inspect processed data Weekly Final review data Prior to reporting

Distress Rating

Initial rater training Prior to collection Control site rating calibration Monthly Intra-rater verification Weekly Inter-rater verification Weekly Final review data Prior to reporting

Segment and BMP Location

Mileage review Daily Comparison with Road Inventory Weekly GIS Comparison Prior to reporting Final review data Prior to reporting

Imaging Start-up calibration, monitoring and field review Daily Upload sample review Weekly Final review Prior to reporting

Data Collection

Equipment

All SCDOT and Vendor Inertial Profilers meet ASTM 950 Class I specification and has been certified by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI).

Equipment Maintenance will follow manufacturer’s recommended procedures.

Checklists for recording results of the calibrations and testing are provided within the equipment and will be exported and delivered with the data.

Training

For non SCDOT collected data:

• Documentation of training processes and remediation processes for rating and QC issues will be submitted for SCDOT approval.

For SCDOT collected data:

Two, 1-week training sessions are part of profiler delivery. The first week is spent on primary hardware training and initial software training and the second week is typically scheduled for a few weeks later to cover in-depth software training.

The training will include (at a minimum):

• On-site training by qualified and technically knowledgeable personnel at a State-selected location.

• Training to thoroughly address operation, maintenance, trouble-shooting, and calibration of all vehicle subsystems.

• Training to thoroughly address operation of the dedicated workstation software.

• The Contractor shall supply printed manuals to each trainee.

• The Contractor shall permit State to record the training sessions for subsequent training purposes.

The second training week is an item-by-item tutorial of each menu item in the desktop and web applications that accompany the profilers.

The above training will be documented and retained for training of future employees. In addition, each year the Pavement Management Engineer will meet with all collection teams prior to starting collection to review procedures and reinforce Quality Control standards.

Collection Condition Thresholds

All equipment manufacturers’ recommended procedures shall be observed.

General Practices:

• Temperature: Between 40 and 100 F;

• Wind: Data collection should not be performed when wind conditions affect the stability of the equipment/vehicle; and

• Surface: Data collection should preferably be performed when the roadway surface is dry.

• Data should only be collected at the speeds that correspond to the manufacturer’s recommended speed range. Constant speeds should be maintained for all measurements within manufacturer’s specified ranges.

• The impacts of bridge approaches and railroad crossings (or other localized discontinuities) are not to be included in the roughness measurement for the roadway.

• Roughness measurements should be taken over the entire length of a roadway section. However, in order to achieve equipment and speed stability, a minimum run-in length, consistent with the manufacturer’s specification, may be required prior to the beginning of the measurement area.

Collection Crew Quality Control Duties

• Calibrations-data shall be submitted to the Field Engineers for approval and historical catalog.

o Daily-Accelerometers and Laser calibrations, daily mileage totals, error reports.

o Weekly-Collection lists and downloaded data.

o Monthly-Calibrations site runs, Block Test results and any DMI calibrations will be delivered to Field Engineer the first day of monthly collections for review.

o Any of these tests can be run by the Collection crews at any time deemed necessary by them or the Field Engineer.

o General vehicle maintenance or delivery to proper location for additional maintenance needs.

• Continuous review during collection process for errors. Said errors will be reported using software reports and verbal/written communication to the Field Engineer for immediate review and historical catalog.

Field Engineer Quality Control Duties

• Review Calibration site runs to ensure all vehicles meet the accuracy and repeatability standards as detailed in Table 2.0

• Review daily reports and data for any problems that would cause an immediate full-stop of collection

• Assist collection crews with resolving hardware, software and/or mechanical issues for the profilers

• Weekly upload collected data to SCDOT server

• Review data pre-processing for any identification/control errors

• Process data

• Process with quality control software to reveal data anomalies

• Review reported anomalies to determine validity

• Load data into SCDOT’s Highway Pavement Management Application

(HPMA) reporting software

• Review sampling of vendor collected data

Our Quality Control processes, referenced in SCDOT’S 2017 Revision of WinRP and HPMA for Field Engineers (Appendix V) in the appendix, will show how all internally collected data is subject to quality control processes on a weekly basis.

Control Sites

Control sites are provided to ensure all vehicles meet the accuracy and repeatability standards detailed in Table 2.0. Blind site sampling on random routes may be used by SCDOT to further verify collection data. SCDOT will collect and confirm through repeated runs, reference values for the IRI, Rut Depth, Faulting and other distresses for that blind site to use as an accuracy comparison to other SCDOT and Vendor profilers.

Established Calibration sites:

1. Site 48 located in Columbia

Five additional permanent sites will be set up by SCDOT Surveying group in 2018 to match the established 48 site.

Established Calibration site runs: Follow manufacturer’s specifications and suggested calibration run schedule. Quality Control Protocols establish a five run repeatability requirement. The manufacturer of the profiler vehicle provides SCDOT with a macro-enabled automated certification spreadsheet utility to help automate weekly/monthly vehicle certifications. The collection vendor must follow similar procedures. The spreadsheets and vendor reports will be archived a minimum of 7 years.

To ensure automated collection systems are performing as expected:

• Each control site shall be checked with at least one other vendor or SCDOT profiler at least once yearly

• Field engineer shall check to ensure all profiler data is accurate within quality control standards as shown in Table 2.0

DATA REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE

Data Reduction and Processing Checks

After data collection and determination of condition ratings are complete for a week, the data is uploaded, compiled and processed and stored in the agency’s Linear Referencing System (LRS). Checks of the data include:

• verifying proper format

• checking for missing data

• screening the data for errors

Any formatting or heading issues will be corrected at this stage.

Statistical Comparison of Current vs Historical Data

SCDOT’S 2017 Revision of WinRP and HPMA for Field Engineers of data includes a Quality Control section where the current data is compared against historical data to identify and select routes which fall out of the accepted range of change for the period of time. The field engineer will review all flagged routes.

The engineer will:

• Copy those routes to a spreadsheet

• Individually assess the routes to determine if they are reflective of current conditions

• Determine if recollection and/or recalibration is required

Those annotated spreadsheets are archived in that Region’s folder for that week so that a permanent reference is established for historical purposes.

Completeness evaluation

Software provides a completeness check option for the engineer to run regarding IRI and Distress as well as Image completeness. The engineer shall create a spreadsheet from the automated “completeness check” results and accounts for any missing or incomplete data. Follow-up recollection may be directed again at this point if needed.

This spreadsheet is saved in the folder for each collection region with other data for permanent reference. (See SCDOT’S 2017 Revision of WinRP and HPMA for Field Engineers).

Table 3.0 Completeness Check Results

Acceptance Criteria for SCDOT Collected Data

As the in-house distress rating data are reviewed weekly, the engineers keep a log of all data checked and the results of the inspection. Since distress rating checks are very time-consuming, it is done as the data is collected with quality control checks continuing throughout the data collection process. Because of this overlap, there is opportunity to re-collect or resurvey any route sections that do not meet quality criteria with minimal additional time and expense for the agency.

Table 3.1 Acceptance Criteria of SCDOT Collected Data

Acceptance Criteria for SCDOT Collected Data

Deliverable Data Review Acceptance Corrective Action

IRI/Rutting/ Faulting 100% inspection weekly 95% Re-evaluate/Recollect

Distress Rating 100% inspection weekly 95% Re-evaluate/Recollect

Images 25% inspection weekly 95% Reject/Recollect

Acceptance practice includes comparison to historic pavement performance. Any data determined to fall outside of acceptable performance ranges will be subjected to manual review of images for verification.

If the amount of data found to be satisfactory falls outside of the acceptance range corrective action will be taken.

Acceptance Criteria for Vendor Collected Data

For Vendor collected data, SCDOT requires bi-weekly updates of the collection process which will include any QC issues the vendor is having that has affected data collection.

These issues will be reviewed by the QC engineer and/or the Engineers and instructions directed to the vendor for resolution. These issues will be noted in the QC logs along with actions taken to resolve these issues.

Because vendor delivered data is typically delivered in large batches, systematic sampling and statistical analysis of the batch deliveries will be conducted over each delivery with engineers visually inspecting the delivered data and making logic checks of the distresses indicated to the provided downward images to confirm validity, LRS/GPS confirmations will also be made to assure completeness.

The final report each year from the Vendor includes equipment calibrations, control site results, data collection schedule and any correspondence between the parties during the collection. It will also include documentation of any quality issues and resolution actions performed by the Vendor.

Table 3.2 Acceptance Criteria of Vendor Collected Data

Acceptance Criteria for Vendor Collected Data

Deliverable Data Review Acceptance Corrective Action

IRI/Rutting/Faulting 20% upon delivery 95% Reject/Re-evaluate

Distress Data 25% upon delivery 95% Reject/Re-evaluate

Images 25% upon delivery 95% Report/Reject/Recollect

Acceptance practice includes blind sampling and comparison to historic pavement performance. Any data determined to fall outside of acceptable performance ranges will be subjected to manual review of data and images for verification. If the amount of data found to be satisfactory falls outside of the acceptance range corrective action will be taken.

Image Review Items

• Image clarity― images should be clear and highway signs easily read. Most highway distresses should be evident in all views. There should be minimal or no debris in the cameras’ viewing path

• Image brightness/darkness―images are not to be collected during hours when it is too dark (rule-of-thumb: if street lights or security lights are on, then it is too dark). It has been found that during poor lighting conditions, the images become very grainy and seem to be out of focus, or it results in a “black out,” which can cause a control section to be rejected. In addition, if the data collection occurs just before a rain storm, the dark clouds may not allow the proper amount of light to enter the camera, and the subsequent image(s) will be of poor quality

• Missing images―There should be no more than 5% missing images

• Completeness---All images were delivered related to that collection cycle

• Image replay―Images should play sequentially and in the correct order. The data collection vehicle should give the impression that it is traveling in a forward direction

QUALITY TEAM ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES

The following identifies the quality-related responsibilities of the data collection team and lists, specific quality responsibilities.

Quality Control Engineer-Manages the overall Quality Control for the Pavement Management Group. This includes overseeing SCDOT and Vendor collected data. This position continuously monitors Quality efforts and revises and upgrades processes and procedures to improve Quality Management. The QC Engineer also identifies and oversees setup of Control Sites as well as review of each vehicle’s control site runs to ensure accuracy among all vehicles.

Data Management Engineer-Review and exercise Quality Control over primarily Vendor collected data. Coordinates and suggests upgrades to the QC processes.

Field Engineers-These engineers’ review and exercise Quality Control procedures for SCDOT collected Pavement Management data/images. They coordinate, execute, review and suggest upgrades to the QC processes. They may also be utilized for review of Vendor collected data in the QC process.

Senior/Chief Geodetic Technicians-These field personnel are trained and certified by the SCDOT to perform pavement data collection and must follow all QC collection procedures. They are extensively trained in identifying and recording distresses. They are trained to watch the systems for any issues during collection. They are encouraged to contribute to the QC program using their extensive system knowledge of both the vehicles and Road Systems in SC.

Image Engineer- Reviews and loads images collected in-house on a weekly basis, allowing the engineers to view routes during the QC process. Reviews and loads Vendor collected images as received.

QUALITY REPORTING AND DOCUMENTATION

The acceptance log is used by the pavement management engineer(s) to itemize, document, and track to closure, items reported through the acceptance process. The Acceptance log is located with the collected database, usually referred to by Date/Week collection or Route type.

Table 4.0 Example Quality Control Log

Example Quality Control Log

ID Date Deliverable/ Review

Storage Location Finding Resolution Resolution

Date

P1 10/30/17 Images Photolog 2017 Intermittent Recollect 10/31/2017

PDI1 11/04/17 Distresses 202 Photolog

Engineers Evaluation Loaded 11/04/2017

M1 11/04/17 Reviewed Photolog

Images clean Loaded 11/04/2017

PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT DATA QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN

ACCEPTANCE

Submitted by: ____________________________________________ Date: ___________________ Pavement Management Quality Control Engineer

Recommended for Approval: ____________________________________________ Date: ___________________ Pavement Management Engineer

Approved: ____________________________________________ Date: ___________________ Director of Road Data Services

DOCUMENT CHANGE CONTROL

The following chart provides document control information for SCDOT Quality Management Plan:

SCDOT Quality Management Document Version Data Chart

Version Number Date Author(s) Description

0.09 05/01/2016 GC Initial draft

0.10 07/01/2016 GC Added charts

0.20 11/01/2016 GC/CR Corrected charts, general edits

0.25 01/01/2017 GC Edited narrative and charts to include newly released Federal standards

0.30 02/2017-03/2017 GC Grammar/structure edits

0.40 08/01/2017 GC Federal rule edits

0.50 10/01/2017 GC Collection Edits, Chart Edits, added current calibration specifications

0.55 10/24/2017 GC/CR/JW/TA Future use document. Edited charts/narrative to reflect

0.60 11/27/2017 CR/GC General content edits

0.75 12/12/2017 CR/GC General content edits

0.80 12/18/2017 TA/CR/GC/JW Content/flow edits

0.90 01/10/2018 TA/CR/GC/JW Content/flow edits

1.00 1/11/2018 JJF Modify Table 1, and syntax changes.

Document Issued

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

AASHTO: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACCEPTANCE PLAN: An agreed upon method of evaluation the acceptability of the pavement condition data.

ACCEPTANCE TESTING: The activities required to determine the degree of compliance of the pavement data collected with contract requirements.

ACCEPTANCE: The process whereby all factors used by the agency are evaluated to determine the degree of compliance with contract requirements and to determine the corresponding value for a given product. (AASHTO 2011) ACCURACY: The degree to which a measurement or the mean of a distribution of measurements tends to coincide with the true population mean. (AASHTO 2011) AUTOMATED DATA COLLECTION: Process of collection pavement condition data by the use of imaging technologies or other sensor equipment.

AUTOMATED DATA PROCESSING: The reduction of pavement condition (surface distress, such as cracking and patching or pavement condition indices such as IRI) form images or other sensors. The process is considered fully automated if the pavement condition is identified and quantified through techniques that require either no or very minimal human intervention (using digital software capable of recognizing and quantifying distresses on a pavement surface.)

BIAS: An error, constant in direction that causes a measurement or the mean of a distribution of measurements, to be offset from the true population mean. (AASHTO 2011) BLIND SITE: Control site whose location is unknown to the data collection team.

CALIBRATION: A set of operations that establish, under specified conditions, the relationship between values of quantities indicated by a measuring instrument or measuring system, or between values represented by a material measure or a reference material, and the corresponding values realized by standards. (AASHTO 2011) CONTROL SITES: Control sites are roadway segments whose condition data have typically been measured by agency or third party personnel for use as a reference value or “ground truth.” Data collected during the production phase is compared against the reference values to verify proper collection procedures and continued calibration of the equipment. In this way, control sites are used to assess the adequacy of the QC process.

CORRECTIVE ACTION: Improvements/adjustments to an organization’s processes taken to eliminate causes of non-conformities or other undesirable situations.

DATA PROCESSING: Covers all of the activities that are conducted to convert the raw data collected in the field surveys to useful information. (Flintsch and McGhee 2009) DISTANCE MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENT (DMI): A transducer used to determine the longitudinal distance that the measurement vehicle has travelled.

DISTRESS RATING: Measurement of the extent and severity of distress (cracking, patching, etc.).

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (FHWA): A division of the US Department of Transportation that funds research and oversees the distribution of federal highway funding.

GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS): System designed to capture, store, manipulate, analyze, manage and present all types of geographic data.

GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS): Satellite-based navigation system.

Highway Pavement Management Application (HPMA): SCDOT’s database and reporting software.

HIGHWAY PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM (HPMS): A national-level highway information system that includes data on the extent, condition, performance, use, and operating characteristics of the nation’s highways. HPMS contains administrative and extent of system information on all public roads, while information on other characteristics is represented in HPMS as a mix of universe and sample data for arterial and collector functional systems. Limited information on travel and paved miles is included in summary form for the lowest functional systems. (FHWA HPMS website http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms.cfm) INTERNATIONAL ROUGHNESS INDEX (IRI): A statistic used to estimate the amount of roughness in a measured longitudinal profile. (ASTM E1926) INTER-RATER RELIABILITY: Competent raters using the same protocols on the same roadway section get the same results. Also known as cross-rater reliability.

LOCATION REFERENCING SYSTEM: The total set of procedures for determining and retaining a record of specific points along a roadway. The system includes the location referencing method(s), together with the procedures for storing, maintaining, and retrieving location information about points and segments on the highways. (TRB 1974) LOGIC CHECK: Consistency between the rated distress type and the pavement type (assuring that the rated distress matches the pavement type.)

NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM (NHS): Consists of roadways important to the nation’s economy, defense and mobility. (FHWA NHS website-http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/).

NETWORK-LEVEL DATA: Data supporting pavement management decisions on a roadway network or system basis (Flintsch and McGhee 2009).

PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX (PCI): A numerical rating resulting from a pavement condition survey that represents the severity of the surface distresses. (See ASTM D6433) PAVEMENT CONDITION INDICATOR: A measure of the condition of an existing pavement section at a particular point in time. This indicator may be a specific measure of a pavement condition characteristic (smoothness/cracking severity and/or extent) or an index defined for a single distress (cracking), for multiple distresses (e.g.,PCI), or for the overall pavement condition. (Flintsch and McGhee 2009) PAVEMENT CONDITION: An evaluation of the degree of deterioration and/or quality of service of an existing pavement section at a particular point in time, either from and engineering or user (driver) perspective. The condition as it is perceived by the user is often referred to as functional condition. The estimated ability of the pavement to carry the load is referred to as structural condition (Flintsch and McGhee 2009).

PAVEMENT DISTRESS INDEX: A numerical rating resulting from a pavement condition survey that represents the severity of the surface distresses. (See ASTM D6433) See also Pavement Condition Index.

PRESENT SERVICEABILITY INDEX (PSI): An index derived by formula for estimating the serviceability rating from measurements of physical features of the pavement.

PROJECT-LEVEL DATA: Data supporting pavement management decisions on a discrete project or roadway segment basis (Flintsch and McGhee 2009).

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms.cfm http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/

QUALITY CONTROL (QC): The system used by a contractor to monitor, assess, and adjust its production or placement process to ensure that the final product will meet the specified level of quality. Quality control includes sampling, testing, inspection and corrective action (where required) to maintain continuous control of a production or placement process (AAHSTO 2011).

QUALITY CONTROL PLAN: A document that describes the process to be followed for delivering the level of pavement condition data quality required. This plan typically included data quality objectives (precision, accuracy, completeness, etc.), organization and responsibility, sampling procedures, equipment requirements (calibration, verification, etc.), processing of the QC data, statistical analysis to be conducted, reporting, documentation of potential problems, and remedial solutions (Flintsch and McGhee 2009).

QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN: A documents that specifies the quality management procedures and resources that will be used and how the process will be implemented and assessed for effectiveness (adapted from ISO 2000).

QUALITY: The degree of excellence of a product or service; the degree to which a product or service conforms to a given requirement (AASHTO 2011).

RANDOM SAMPLE: A sample in which each increment in the lot has an equal probability of being chosen.

REFERENCE VALUE: A value that serves as an agreed-upon reference for comparison, and which is derived as a theoretical or established value, based on scientific principles, an assigned or certified value, based on experimental work of some national or international organization, or a consensus or certified value, based on collaborative experimental work under the auspices of a scientific or engineering group (AASHTO 2011). Also known as ground truth.

REPEATABILITY: Degree of variation among the results obtained by the same operator repeating a test on the same material. The term repeatability is therefore used to designate test precision under a single operator (AASHTO 2011).

REPRODUCIBILITY: Degree of variation among the test results obtained by different operators performing the same test on the same material.

RESOLUTION: the smallest change in a quantity being measured that causes a perceptible change in the corresponding indication (ICO 2008).

ROAD DATA SERVICES: SCDOT department that collects data and generates reporting of road conditions.

SEMI-AUTOMATED DATA COLLECTION/PROCESSING: Process of collecting pavement condition data using imaging technologies or other sensor equipment but involving significant human input during the processing and/or recording of the data (Flintsch and McGhee 2009).

SYSTEMATIC SAMPLING: Statistical method involving the selection of elements form and ordered sampling frame. The most common form of systematic sampling is an equal-probability method. In this approach, progression through the list is treated circularly, with a return to the topo once the end of the list is passed.

VALIDATION: The mathematical comparison of two independently obtained sets of data (e.g. agency acceptance data vs. contractor data) to determine whether it can be assumed they came from the same population (AASHTO 2011).

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials DMI Distance measuring instrument DOT Department of Transportation FHWA Federal Highway Administration FWD Falling weight Deflectometer GIS Geographic information system GPR Ground penetrating radar GPS Global positioning systems HPMA Highway Pavement Management Application HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System IRI International Roughness Index ITMS Integrated Transportation Management System LRM Location referencing method LRS Location referencing system NHS National Highway System PCI Pavement Condition Index PDI Pavement Distress Index PCR Pavement Condition Rating PMS Pavement Management System PQI Pavement Quality Index PSI Present Serviceability Index PSR Present Serviceability Rating PWL Percent within limits QC Quality control QM Quality management RIMS Roadway Information Management System SCDOT South Carolina Department of Transportation

APPENDIX I AASHTO and ASTM and other References

(Orange-already included, Red-Added, Black-included but not mentioned in Final Rule or I didn’t catch it)

Highway Performance Monitoring System Field Manual 2016

AASHTO M 328 - Standard Specification for Inertial Profiler

AASHTO R 36 – Evaluating Faulting of Concrete Pavements

AASHTO R 43 – Quantifying Roughness of Pavements

AASHTO R 48 – Determining Rut Depth in Pavements

AASHTO R 55 – Quantifying Cracks in Asphalt Pavement Surface

AASHTO R 56 – Standard Practice for Certification of Inertial Profiling Systems

AASHTO R 57 – Standard Practice for Operating Inertial Profilers and Evaluating Pavement Profiles

AASHTO PP 67-16 (2017) – Quantifying Cracks in Asphalt Pavement Surfaces from Collected Images Utilizing Automated Methods (Still a PP doc as of 2017) https://materials.transportation.org/technical-sections/som-ts-5a-pavement-measurement%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8B/

AASHTO PP 68-14 (2017) – Collecting Images of Pavement Surfaces for Distress Detection

AASHTO PP 69-16 (2017) – Determining Pavement Deformation Parameters and Cross Slope form Collected Transverse Profile

AASHTO PP 70-14 (2017) – Collecting the Transverse Pavement Profile

AASHTO Standard M328-14 Standard Specification for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Standard Equipment Specification for Inertial Profiler

ASTM E950 – Standard Test Method for Measuring the Longitudinal Profile of Vehicular Travelled Surfaces with an Accelerometer Established Inertial Profiling Reference

ASTM E1166 – Standard Guide for Network Level Pavement Management

ASTM E1926 – Standard Practice for Computing International Roughness Index from Longitudinal Profile Measurements https://materials.transportation.org/technical-sections/som-ts-5a-pavement-measurement%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8B/ https://materials.transportation.org/technical-sections/som-ts-5a-pavement-measurement%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8B/

ASTM E1656 – Standard Guide for the Classification of Automated Pavement Condition Survey Equipment

ASTM E1703 – Test Method for Measuring Rut Depth of Pavement Surfaces Using a Straightedge

APPENDIX II Profiler Calibration Specifications

Laser Calibrations:

Raters seated in vehicle and not moving, all additional items, coolers, bags etc.

already in van

Engine running Level area (concrete preferred, smooth) with the bar in place and lasers centered on bar Minimum daily calibration- each morning before collection Pass/Fail tolerances set up in Calibration screen

Accelerometer Calibrations:

Raters seated in vehicle and not moving, , all additional items, coolers, bags etc.

already in van

Engine running Calibration bar not necessary, but level surface preferred. Vehicle stopped.

Minimum daily calibrations. Additional calibrations every time raters change seats.

Pass/fail tolerances set up in calibration screen.

Block Calibrations:

Raters outside vehicle (with ability to reach mouse to conduct calibration) Engine off Level area (concrete preferred, smooth) Minimum of monthly calibration Tolerances of 0.02 inches for every block movement.

Distance Measuring Instrument (DMI) Calibration:

Most accurate with target sensor/reflective tape and surveyed calibration distance Minimum of five (5) testing runs in single calibration screen (depending on how close the calibration pulse numbers are). Delete obvious outliers before saving the “average” for testing against Known route lengths for accuracy.

Calibrations will be done quarterly or at seasonal changes; when there is a pattern of incorrect mileages or questionable distances; or any time a major PM that includes checking air pressure/tire rotation/tire replacement occurs.

Check distances carefully after a vehicle provider “checkup” visit.

Calibrations have been needed due to unknown changes they make and don’t include in report to us.

APPENDIX III Rating Bituminous Pavement Distresses at the SCDOT

Road Data Services Division Office of Pavement Management

Table of Contents

Section Page

Introduction 3

The Concept of Rating a Road 3

Asphalt Distresses 4

Special Cases 21

Special Rating Instructions 24

Introduction

The idea of “rating” a road simply refers to the exercise of using a common vocabulary of pavement surface distresses to describe the surface condition of a road. The ultimate purpose of this exercise is to increase the likelihood that highway rehabilitation dollars will be spent where most needed. The Pavement Management Section of the SCDOT combines the data that is generated by the rating of roads with other information--including anticipated budgets--to identify roads for possible rehabilitation.

The Concept of Rating a Road

Rating a road is simply the task of collecting the observable part of the primary data required for pavement evaluation and pavement management. Rating therefore consists of identifying and recording all distresses observed on a road segment. The types of distresses that are normally observable include various kinds of cracks, potholes, and patches, as well as general surface wear.

Two additional measurements that are recorded by instruments attached to the vehicle are rutting and roughness. Rutting is recorded by laser or ultrasonic sensors, and roughness is measured by accelerometers. The raw data collected in the van is then downloaded to software that transforms it into comparative data. Precise definitions of the different distresses and accompanying photographs appear in the following pages.

ASPHALT DISTRESSES

FATIGUE CRACKING

Description This distress is most important in terms of the structural life of the pavement. The cracking and breaking up of the surface is the result of repeated traffic loading or weakening of the underlying layers.

Fatigue cracking (a.k.a. alligator/chicken wire cracking) is generally a series of interconnected cracks enclosing multi-sided pieces, usually less than one (1) foot on the longest side.

Fatigue cracking often initially appears as longitudinal cracks in the wheel paths.

Fatigue cracking usually occurs in areas subjected to repeated traffic loading, although it can occur anywhere on the pavement surface.

Severity Levels

(Figure 1: General view of fatigue severity for asphalt surfaces.)

Low

Low severity fatigue cracking involves cracks that are fine or narrow in width.

Low severity fatigue cracking may consist of any of the following:

1) A single crack in the wheel path.

2) Longitudinal disconnected hairline cracks

3) Longitudinal cracks with interconnections just beginning to form

4) Longitudinal cracks combined with horizontal cracks, forming a “net”, and commonly referred to as alligator cracking. The alligator cracking may involve all four wheel paths or even the entire road.

(Low severity fatigue cracking)

Moderate

Moderate severity fatigue cracking can have any of the following characteristics:

1) Moderate severity fatigue cracking involves cracks that are not fine or narrow, but rather beginning to widen into widths of ¼ to ½ inch.

2) The cracking pattern has often reached the “alligator” stage.

3) The pieces of the alligator cracking usually are beginning to separate and may be spalled as well.

4) Moderate fatigue may often be associated with old patches.

5) The wheel path is often sunken where the moderate fatigue is concentrated.

Moderate fatigue may involve one to four wheel paths, but rarely involves the entire road.

(Moderate severity fatigue cracking)

High

High severity fatigue cracking can have the following characteristics:

1) Cracks which are noticeably wide, from ½ inch to an inch or more.

2) The cracking pattern has often reached the “alligator” stage.

3) The pieces of the alligator cracking usually are separate, spalled, and breaking up.

4) Pieces of pavement may have broken away entirely, creating holes in the alligator pattern.

5) As with moderate fatigue, high fatigue is often associated with old patches.

6) The wheel path is often sunken where the high fatigue is concentrated.

Potholes are a common form of high fatigue cracking. High fatigue may involve one to four wheel paths, but almost never involves the entire road.

(High severity fatigue cracking)

Extent

Extent 1: Fatigue in one Wheel Path = 3%

Extent 2: Fatigue in two Wheel Paths = 11%

Extent 3: Fatigue in three Wheel Paths = 22%

Extent 4: Fatigue in four Wheel Paths = 45%

Extent 5: Fatigue over entire area = 80%

LONGITUDINAL CRACKING

Longitudinal cracking includes non-load associated linear cracking occurring relatively parallel to the pavement centerline, and usually at the edge or between lanes. Note that “non-load associated” means the cracking is not in the wheel path. A longitudinal crack in the wheel path is therefore always fatigue. This type of cracking can occur as a result of one or more of the following: 1) a poor construction joint, 2) natural shrinkage, or 3) the high temperature susceptibility of the asphalt mix.

Longitudinal cracks occur in only three places:

1) In the area between the shoulder and the shoulder wheel path.

2) Between wheel paths.

3) On or close to the center line.

The vicinity of the centerline is one of the most common areas for longitudinal cracks to develop.

On roads with narrow lanes (most secondary routes and some US and SC routes) where the traveled wheel path borders closely to the shoulder of the road, do not call a crack near the shoulder a longitudinal crack. Fatigue cracking should be utilized in these situations to record such distresses likely caused by traffic loading, or for “edge cracking” for roads with narrow lanes and non-paved shoulders.

Figure 2: Longitudinal cracks are registered when distresses similar to those marked 4b are present (4a’s are fatigue cracking).

Low severity longitudinal cracks vary from hairline cracks to cracks ¼ inch in width. Low severity cracks have little or no spalling.

(Low Severity Longitudinal Cracking)

Moderate longitudinal cracks are wider, with a width of ¼ to ½ inch. Spalling may be present as well as low severity multiple cracking.

(Moderate Severity Longitudinal Cracking)

High longitudinal cracks are very wide, greater than ½ inch. Also, spalling is often present and may be severe. Multiple cracking of varying severity may also be present.

(High Severity Longitudinal Cracking)

Extent 1: One longitudinal crack = 20%

Extent 2: Two longitudinal cracks = 40%

Extent 3: Three longitudinal cracks = 60%

Extent 4: Four longitudinal cracks = 80%

Extent 5: More than four longitudinal cracks = 100%

TRANSVERSE CRACKING

This distress includes linear cracking occurring relatively perpendicular to the pavement centerline. Full transverse cracks—those that extend across all lanes—may be regularly spaced along the length of the road. More typically, transverse cracks are irregularly spaced, especially if they extend only partly across the lanes.

Transverse cracking commonly occurs as a result of: 1) natural shrinkage caused by thermal cycling, 2) high temperature susceptibility of the asphalt mix, or 3) as the result of paving over jointed concrete with an asphalt or bituminous mix (BOC), causing “reflective” cracking at the joints.

Figure 3: Transverse cracking on bituminous over concrete (BOC), including reflection cracking.

Figure 4: Transverse cracking severity – 6L is low, 6M is moderate and 6H is high.

Low transverse cracks vary from hairline cracks to slightly wider than hairline, up to approximately ¼ inch. Low transverse have little or no spalling associated with the crack.

(Low severity transverse cracking)

½ in

1/8 in 1/8 in

1/10 in 1 in

1/8 in

Note: When varying levels of severity are present within a crack or network of cracks, rate

Moderate transverse cracks are distinguished primarily by the width of the crack. A moderate level transverse crack technically is ¼ inch to ½ inch in width. Typically, moderate cracks are over ¼ inch. Some spalling may be present but usually is not. Other, smaller cracks may be associated with the primary transverse crack.

(Moderate Severity Transverse Cracking)

High transverse cracks are greater than ½ inch in width, often have spalling, and may have multiple cracking associated with the primary transverse crack. The multiple cracking may be of moderate or even high severity. Note that “greater than ½ inch” implies that the cracks may get very big.

(High severity transverse cracking)

Extent 1: Cumulative Transverse Cracks up to the pavement width in aggregate length are greater than 60 ft. apart = 5%

Extent 2: Cumulative Transverse Cracks equal to the pavement width in aggregate length are between 60 ft. and 30 ft. apart = 15%

Extent 3: Cumulative Transverse Cracks equal to the pavement width in aggregate length are between 30 ft. and 15 ft. apart = 25%

Extent 4: Cumulative Transverse Cracks equal to the pavement width in aggregate length are between 15 ft. and 5 ft. apart = 50%

Extent 5: Cumulative Transverse Cracks equal to the pavement width in aggregate length are less than 5 ft. apart = 99%

Explanation: Extents will need to be adjusted to accommodate situations where the cracks extend only partway across the road. Such adjustments involve reducing the extent to reflect the partial reach of the cracks.

Example: If you notice three 3 foot, one 5foot and one 10 foot transverse cracks across a 24 foot wide pavement surface (which equals 24 feet of total transverse cracking or one full width crack) over a 20 foot longitudinal span, you would register an extent level 3 (one full crack between 15 and 30 feet).

RAVELING

Raveling is the wearing away of the pavement surface in high-quality hot mix asphalt concrete. It is the result of the dislodging of aggregate particles and loss of asphalt binder. The nature of raveling—that it is the wearing away of the surface material—means that this distress always involves the entire road.

Severity Levels

Low

The aggregate or binder has begun to wear away but has not progressed to the point at which aggregate begins to pop out, leaving the road pitted. Surface appearance varies from slightly grainy to sandpaper. At high extents—e. g., 4 or 5—the road can be noisy and may be somewhat rough.

(Low One Raveling – Top of medium or larger aggregate just beginning to show)

In raveling, moderate is a big jump from low, and is rarely used in comparison to low.

Aggregate and/or binder has worn away considerably. The texture is becoming rough and pitted; there is a loss of fine aggregate and some loss of course aggregate; loose particles are usually present. The ride is noticeably noisy and may be rough.

(Moderate Severity Raveling)

High raveling is a big jump from moderate raveling. High raveling is not often encountered. In high raveling, aggregate and/or binder has worn away dramatically. The surface texture is very rough and pitted, with noticeable loss of course aggregate. The ride is very noisy and rough.

(High Severity – Large aggregate is loose and missing)

Note: Extent applies to the entire road; wheel paths are not relevant; new or recently paved roads have no raveling.

Extent 1: Very slight separation of aggregate from asphalt binder; top of aggregate may show slightly in areas; surface still relatively smooth = 3%

Extent 2: Enough separation of aggregate and binder for road to feel ` slight roughness; top of aggregate now visible across the surface = 11%

Extent 3: Separation of aggregate and binder quite distinct and roughness is more noticeable; up to ¼ inch of aggregate may protrude above binder =22%

Extent 4: Separation of aggregate and binder very marked; ¼ to 3/8 inch of aggregate protrudes above binder; roughness very noticeable = 45%

Extent 5: Separation of aggregate and binder dramatic; over 3/8 inch of aggregate protrudes above binder; very rough = 80%

Note: For Raveling, extent levels 1-3 apply only to low severity raveling due to lower deduct percentages for these extent levels and the potential for giving improved condition data on higher severity raveled sections.